NO. 12-12-00234-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ROBERT C. MORRIS, § APPEAL FROM THE THIRD

APPELLANT

V. 

ELIZABETH CROSS, SHERRI MILLIGAN, § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

JOHN BECRAFT, BRYAN GORDY,

CHRISTY HOISINGTON AND

CHERYL LAWSON

APPELLEES § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert C. Morris appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of his civil suit against Elizabeth 

Cross, Sherri Milligan, John Becraft, Bryan Gordy, Christy Hoisington, and Cheryl Lawson. The 

dismissal was rendered pursuant to Chapter Fourteen of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies 

Code. Morris raises two issues on appeal. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Morris, an inmate, claims that, on January 14, 2010, several individuals harassed him in 

retaliation for a civil lawsuit that he filed. A few days later, Morris filed a Step 1 Offender 

Grievance Form with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Correctional Institutions Division 

(TDCJ-CID). According to Morris’s grievance, Milligan and Cross, with the assistance of Becraft, 

confiscated Morris’s legal documents and some other personal property. In response to his 

grievance, TDCJ-CID informed Morris that proper procedures were followed and he was not 

harassed.

Dissatisfied with the response, Morris filed his Step 2 Offender Grievance Form with TDCJCID. On March 19, 2010, TDCJ-CID responded to his Step 2 grievance that he was properly 

advised at Step 1 and no further action was necessary. According to Morris’s Declaration of 
2

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, Morris received TDCJ-CID’s response to his Step 2 

grievance on March 31, 2010.

On May 29, 2012, Morris brought a pro se in forma pauperis suit pursuant to Chapter 

Fourteen of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. According to his petition, Morris claims 

that Milligan, Cross, and Becraft violated Morris’s constitutional rights and several Texas laws by 

confiscating his legal documents and other personal property. Morris also alleges that Gordy, 

Hoisington, and Lawson failed to follow the proper procedures in processing his Step 1 and Step 2 

grievances.

The trial court found Morris’s claims to be “frivolous or malicious.” Specifically, the trial 

court found the realistic chances of ultimate success of Morris’s claims to be slight and that the 

waiver of governmental immunity does not apply to property damage, injury, or death “sustained by 

inmate.” Accordingly, the trial court dismissed Morris’s lawsuit. This appeal followed. 

DISMISSAL OF SUIT

In his first issue, Morris argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed his 

suit because his claims are not frivolous or malicious. In his second issue, Morris argues that the 

trial court abused its discretion when it found his claims “lack merit to succeed.”

Standard of Review

We review the trial court’s dismissal of a suit filed under Chapter Fourteen under an abuse 

of discretion standard. Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 398 (Tex. App.–Waco 1996, no writ). 

A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily, capriciously, and without reference to any 

guiding rules or principles. Lentworth v. Trahan, 981 S.W.2d 720, 722 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st 

Dist.] 1998, no pet.). We will affirm a dismissal if it was proper under any legal theory. See

Johnson v. Lynaugh, 796 S.W.2d 705, 706-07 (Tex. 1990); Birdo v. Ament, 814 S.W.2d 808, 810 

(Tex. App.–Waco 1991, writ denied). The trial courts are given broad discretion to determine 

whether a case should be dismissed because (1) prisoners have a strong incentive to litigate; (2) the 

government bears the cost of an in forma pauperis suit; (3) sanctions are not effective; and (4) the 

dismissal of unmeritorious claims accrue to the benefit of state officials, courts, and meritorious 

claimants. See Montana v. Patterson, 894 S.W.2d 812, 814-15 (Tex. App.–Tyler 1994, no writ).
3

Chapter 14

Chapter Fourteen of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code controls suits brought by 

an inmate when the inmate files an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs.1 TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.002(a) (West Supp. 2012). The inmate must comply with the 

procedural requirements set forth in Chapter Fourteen. Id. §§ 14.002(a), 14.004, 14.005 (West 2002

& West Supp. 2012). If an inmate fails to file suit before the thirty-first day after the date the 

inmate receives the written decision from the grievance system, the trial court must dismiss the suit. 

Id. § 14.005(b) (West 2002).

Additionally, filing a claim that is frivolous will result in the dismissal of an inmate’s suit. 

See id. To determine whether a claim is frivolous or malicious, among other potential factors, we 

consider whether the claim’s realistic chance of ultimate success is slight or the claim has no 

arguable basis in law or in fact. Id. § 14.003(b) (West 2002). 

Application

Morris admits that he received the written decision from the grievance system on March 31, 

2010. However, he did not file suit in state court until May 29, 2012. Instead, he sought to amend 

his pending federal suit to include the new claims of harassment. Because Morris failed to file this 

suit before the thirty-first day after he received the written decision from the grievance system, the 

trial court was required to dismiss his suit. Id. § 14.005. Because the trial court’s dismissal of 

Morris’s suit was mandatory under applicable law, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

dismissing the suit. We overrule Morris’s first and second issues.

DISPOSITION

Having overruled Morris’s first and second issues, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

BRIAN HOYLE

 Justice

Opinion delivered June 19, 2013.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)

 

1 Chapter Fourteen does not apply to an action brought under the Texas Family Code. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. §14.002(b) (West Supp. 2012).
4

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 19, 2013

NO. 12-12-00234-CV

ROBERT C. MORRIS,

Appellant

V.

ELIZABETH CROSS, SHERRI MILLIGAN, JOHN BECRAFT,

BRYAN GORDY, CHRISTY HOISINGTON, AND CHERYL LAWSON,

Appellees

 

 

 Appeal from the 3rd Judicial District Court

 of Anderson County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 3-41714

 

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

Brian Hoyle, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.